| Tm | Lg | Year | W | L | SV | G | GS | IP | H | HR | BB | SO | ERA | WHIP | Rtg | K/9 | K/W | BABIP | G/L/F % | $4x4 | $5x5 |
| BOS | AL | 2008 | 12 | 10 | 0 | 27 | 27 | 174.1 | 173 | 18 | 34 | 172 | 4.03 | 1.19 | 1.24 | 8.9 | 5.1 | .327 | n/a | 16 | 16 |
| BOS | AL | 2009 | 17 | 6 | 0 | 32 | 32 | 212.1 | 198 | 25 | 55 | 199 | 3.86 | 1.19 | 1.24 | 8.4 | 3.6 | .302 | n/a | 24 | 22 |
| BOS | AL | 2010 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 21 | 21 | 127.2 | 151 | 20 | 45 | 116 | 5.78 | 1.54 | 1.59 | 8.2 | 2.6 | .349 | n/a | -11 | -3 |
| BOS | AL | 2011 | 13 | 7 | 0 | 30 | 30 | 193.0 | 146 | 21 | 52 | 175 | 2.89 | 1.03 | 1.05 | 8.2 | 3.4 | .253 | 40/18/42 | 28 | 24 |
| BOS/LAN | NL | 2012 | 7 | 14 | 0 | 28 | 28 | 170.0 | 174 | 21 | 52 | 132 | 4.66 | 1.33 | 1.36 | 7.0 | 2.5 | .306 | 43/21/37 | -3 | 2 |
| LAN | NL | 2013 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 8 | 8 | 43.1 | 50 | 8 | 15 | 41 | 5.19 | 1.50 | 1.60 | 8.5 | 2.7 | .341 | 39/24/37 | -5 | -2 |
| Career | 13yrs | 132 | 100 | 0 | 315 | 312 | 1935.0 | 1801 | 221 | 590 | 1794 | 3.94 | 1.24 | 1.25 | 8.3 | 3.0 | .301 | ||||
| 9 comments | PK 5x5: $10 MF 5x5: $8 AP 4x4: $8 |
|
| Last season: 11 comments | ||
| 2011 season: 13 comments | ||
| 2010 season: 15 comments | ||
| 2009 season: 2 comments | ||
| This season: 2 comments | ||
|
MikeG Feb 18 '08
|
Went for $26 in Sportsline. I bought Erik Bedard for $27, so I'll admit I had a little buyer's remorse. But for all the griping about Bedard's injuries, Beckett hasn't exactly been the pillar of health, either. But, then again, he's also a year younger than Bedard. And he leads in rings, 2-0. |
|
|
Slyke Jan 30 '08
|
With Santana's move to the NL, Beckett's price tag (along with the Halladay's, Sabathia's and Bedard's of the world), just went up a little bit more. | |
|
mike Dec 29 '07
|
I don't know that one can say, categorically. The elimination of saves probably means that a reliever -- even an Eckersley in his prime -- probably won't be as valuable as the best starter. The fact that a dominant starter can get over 700 AB means that he could well be more valuable, but it depends on how dominant he is (and how good the best hitter is).
Historically, of course, it's different -- Gibson's '68 seems like it would be tough to beat, even with a league OPS of .641. With 304 IP and 198 hits, right there that's 1100 AB . . . |
|
|
Alex Dec 29 '07
|
You're right, in the fantasy game. So let's make it a real-life question. The average hitter and average pitcher clearly have the same batting average and opponents' batting average, on-base percent and opponents' on-base percent, and so forth... Is the best pitcher in a given year more valuable than the best hitter in a given year? | |
|
mike Dec 29 '07
|
Well, no, the average hitter wouldn't be the same, because it's the average bought hitter/pitcher; especially on the pitching side, the guys who aren't bought, aren't bought because they're below average. (And, there are more un-bought pitchers.)
However, doesn't that make the hitters more emphatically more valuable? Because the best pitchers have a "higher" average baseline than do the hitters? |
|
|
Alex Dec 28 '07
|
Having exactly the same categories for hitters and pitchers would be fascinating. If there were, say, ten hitters (any position, presumably) and ten pitchers, which side of the equation would you spend more money on? The average hitter and average pitcher would by definition be the same. So are the stats of the best hitter further above average than the stats of the best pitcher are below average? That's the crux of it. It seems to me the answer is, emphatically, yes. For mathematical reasons I'll let the mathematicians among us explain. On the other hand, you just need to be able to count at-bats to say with certainty that Josh Beckett "played" more than Alex Rodriguez last year. Would that make him more valuable? Retrospectively. Setting aside, for the moment, the question of whether the best hitters are easier to predict. |
|
|
mike Dec 28 '07
|
There you go -- maybe a variant of our game would be to, in essence, have two sets of hitting categories, with the "worst" the best on the pitchers' side. Then we'd have to come up with denominators in order to determine pitching values, but it seems like it might be easier than the ERA and ratio calculations . . . | |
|
Alex Dec 28 '07
|
Thanks to John Dewan's free Stat of the Week, which just arrived via email, I've shown Josh Beckett's career (minus four starts in 2001) in the previous post, viewed from the point of view of opposing batters. The first thing to notice, as Dewan points out, is Beckett's amazing consistency. How many hitters have shown such minimal fluctuation in batting average during their first six seasons? The second thing that stands out is that a pitcher who pitches more than 200 innings faces opposing hitters far more often than any hitter faces opposing pitchers. Aren't pitchers essentially hitters in reverse? (The only real difference being that pitchers work a lot harder in each at-bat.) Can't it be argued that a hitter who batted .245, got on base barely more than 28 percent of the time, and slugged a puny .377 in 772 AB hurt a team's offense last year even more than the mightiest hitter -- which would be A-Rod in 583 AB -- boosted it? Nonetheless, because so many sportswriters refuse to even consider pitchers when they make out their ballots, it's unlikely we will ever again see a pitcher win the MVP award. |
|
|
Alex Dec 27 '07
|
Record of Opposing Batters Season AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS Avg OBP Slg OPS 2002 401 56 93 14 5 13 52 44 113 12 5 .232 .308 .389 .697 2003 537 54 132 26 2 9 44 56 152 5 5 .246 .317 .352 .669 2004 582 72 137 32 5 16 67 54 152 5 5 .235 .300 .390 .690 2005 654 75 153 34 6 14 63 58 166 6 7 .234 .296 .369 .665 2006 780 120 191 44 4 36 109 74 158 15 1 .245 .310 .450 .760 2007 772 76 189 45 3 17 72 40 194 14 6 .245 .282 .377 .659 |
|
